Original Article
Re-Description and Morphometric Analysis of Eucalyptus Gall Wasp, Leptocybe invasa
Year: 2019 | Month: June | Volume 12 | Issue 2
1.Burks, R.A. and Heraty, J.M. 2002. Morphometric analysis of four species of Trichogramma Westwood (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) attacking codling moth and other tortricid pests in North America. Journal of Hymenoptera Research, 11(2): 167-187.
View at Google Scholar2.Hassan, E. and Yousuf, M. 2007. First record of Trichogramma plasseyensis Nagaraja (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae), from Central India, and its morphometrics and additional diagnostic characters, Indian Journal of Entomology, 69(1): 58-62.
View at Google Scholar3.Khan, S. and Yousuf, M. 2017. Morphometric analysis of Trichogramma achaeae Nagaraja and Nagarkatti, an important biological control agent of agriculture and forestry. Journal of Biological Control, 31(20): 90-94.
View at Google Scholar4.Khan, S., Yousuf, M. and Ikram, M. 2018. Morphometric studies of two species of Trichogramma (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae), Proceeding of Zoological Society (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-018-0260-4)
View at Google Scholar5.Kumari, N.K., Kulkarni, H., Vastrad, A.S. and Goud, K.B. 2010. Biology of eucalyptus gall wasp, Leptocybe invasa Fisher and La Salle (Hymenoptera: Eulophiae). Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Science, 23: 211–212.
View at Google Scholar6.Ministry of Environment & Natural Resources Management, Republic of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe’s Fourth National Report to the Convention on biological Diversity. Available from: http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/zw/zwnr-04-en.pdf (December 2010).
View at Google Scholar7.Mutitu, K.E. 2003. A pest threat to Eucalyptus species in Kenya. KEFRI Technical Report, pp. 12.
View at Google Scholar8.Neser, S. and Millar, I. 2007. Blastopsylla occidentalis: another new Eucalyptus pest in South Africa. Plant Prot. News, 72: 2
View at Google Scholar9.Nyeko, P. 2005. The cause, incidence and severity of a new gall damage on eucalyptus species at Oruchinga refugee settlement in Mbarara district, Uganda. Ugandan Journal of Agricultural Science, 11: 47–50
View at Google Scholar10.Nyeko, P., Mutitu,Nyeko, P., Mutitu, E.K. and Day, R.K. 2007. Farmers knowledge, perceptions and management of the gall-forming wasp, Leptocybe invasa (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), on Eucalyptus species in Uganda. International Journal of Pest Management, 53: 111–119 E.K. and Day, R.K. 2007. Farmers knowledge, perceptions and management of the gall-forming wasp, Leptocybe invasa (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), on Eucalyptus species in Uganda. International Journal of Pest Management, 53: 111–119
View at Google Scholar11.Nyeko, P., Mutitu,Nyeko, P., Mutitu, E.K. and Day, R.K. 2009. Eucalyptus infestation by Leptocybe invasa in Uganda. African Journal of Ecology, 47: 299–307. E.K. and Day, R.K. 2009. Eucalyptus infestation by Leptocybe invasa in Uganda. African Journal of Ecology, 47: 299–307.
View at Google Scholar12.Platner, G.R., Velten, R.K., Planoutene, M. and Pinto, J.D. 1999. Slide-mounting techniques for Trichogramma (Trichogrammatidae) and other minute parasitic hymenoptera. Entomological News, 110: 56-64
View at Google Scholar13.Protasov, A., Doganlar, M., LaSalle, J. and Mendel, Z. 2008. Occurrence of two local Megastigmus species parasitic on the eucalyptus gall wasp Leptocybe invasa in Israel and Turkey. Phytoparasitica, 36: 449–459.
View at Google Scholar14.Querino, R.B. and Zucchi, R.A. 2004. Morphometric analysis in Trichogramma (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) species. Neotropical Entomology, 33(5): 583-588.
View at Google Scholar15.Thu, P.Q., Dell, B. and Burgess, T.I. 2009. Susceptibility of 18 eucalypt species to the gall wasp Leptocybe invasa in the nursery and young plantations in Vietnam. Science Asia, 35: 113–117
View at Google Scholar16.Wilcken, C.F., Soliman, E.P., de Sa, L.A.N., Barbosa, L.R., Dias, T.K., Ferreira-Filho, P.J. and Oliveira, R.J.R. 2010. Bronze Bug Thaumastocoris peregrinus Carpintero and Dellape (Hemiptera: Thaumastocoridae) on Eucalyptus in Brazil and its distribution. Journal of Plant Protection Research, 50: 201–205
View at Google Scholar